MRAs would rather complain about “male disposability” than work to enable women to serve in combat

Men’s Rights Activists regularly complain that it is mostly men who serve in the armed forces, and that it is mostly male soldiers who are killed and injured in service to their country in wartime. MRAs also complain that, in the United States, only men have to sign up for the draft – though this is more of a formality than anything else, as the draft has been dead for decades and there is virtually no chance of it being resurrected any time soon.

MRAs love to cite the dominance of men in the armed forces as a prime example of what they call “male disposability,” and somehow manage to blame feminists for it all.

But it’s not feminists who are trying to keep women from becoming soldiers, or serving in combat. While some MRAs support the idea of women serving in the army, and having to register for the draft the same as men do, many others scoff at the very notion of women as soldiers, mocking their alleged female “weakness” and in some cases denigrating the service of women now in the armed forces as being equivalent to attending “day care camp.” (Not exactly.) These MRAs may complain that men bear the brunt of the costs of war. But they don’t actually want women to serve.

Do you want to know who is opposing them – aside from the Pentagon’s lawyers? Take a look at some of the comments posted in response to a Los Angeles Times article on the lawsuit. Note: The quotes below are pretty egregious; some deal with military rape in a really offensive way. (Thanks to Pecunium for pointing me to them.)

These aren’t “cherry-picked” from hundreds of comments; these are the bulk of the comments that were left on the article.

Are any of these commenters MRAs? Maybe, maybe not, but certainly their misogynistic “logic” is virtually identical to that I’ve seen from misogynist MRAs opposed to women serving in combat. One thing they are clearly not is feminist.

If MRAs, or at least some of them, truly want a world in which men and women share equally in the responsibilities of military service (and both have equal opportunties for military leadership), they need to challenge the misogynists — within their movement and without — who argue that women simply aren’t fit for the battlefield. And they need to support the feminists who are actually trying to make a difference — instead of standing on the sidelines crying foul.

I don’t hold out much hope that this will ever happen. MRAs are much too enamored with their fantasies of male martyrhood.

A lot of queer groups thought DADT was better than the older system of disciplinary discharges, including dishonorable discharges, as they resulted in worse after effects than administrative discharges. There were also hopes that it would somewhat curb anti-queer witch hunts and interrogations. The fact that he’s proclaiming it as worse when thousands of queer people would suffer greated punishment under the old rules is just one more piece of erasure and dismissal of queer experiences. Opposing a half-measure like DADT in 1993 as a hetero who supports the sodomy rules is not exactly a progressive stance anyways in all likelihood.

Male disposability goes a lot deeper than just men in the military, it’s a perception that burdens men in many avenues of life. Should MRA’s be in favor of women being allowed in combat positions if they have to live up to the same exact physical standards as men? Yes, I think they should if they’re for equal rights, but since they’re men’s rights activists and don’t exactly have a ton of resources at the moment, I don’t see why it should be a top priority for them, especially since there’s already plenty of influential groups fighting for it, as you pointed out. Women getting allowed into combat positions doesn’t exactly solve the perception of male disposability pervasive throughout all of society. Actually, I’m not even sure it does anything to solve it.

As far as selective service registration goes, you can call it a formality because you don’t think the draft will ever be brought back, but as long as a draft is possible, it’s not a formality, it’s there because it might happen, however unlikely in the near future. If it was just a formality, it wouldn’t exist. When I filled out applications for my driver’s license, when I registered to vote, when I applied for university, I was told on those forms that I had to be registered for the selective service, or else. That’s not a formality, that’s once you turn 18, you can’t legally do anything until you register for the draft. It hasn’t been made illegal, and women are not required to register for a draft of non-combat service, so you can’t claim that the reason women don’t have to do it is because they don’t have the right to fight in combat positions.

“in the United States, only men have to sign up for the draft – though this is more of a formality than anything else, as the draft has been dead for decades and there is virtually no chance of it being resurrected any time soon.”

Whether or not there is actual conscription, a man who does not register is a FUGITIVE. He forfeits eligibility for financial aid and job retraining, just to name a few of the penalties.
These things will follow him the entirety of his days – not just while he is considered to be of military age.

Is there ANY requirement made of women that parallels that?
I don’t think so, so it comes across as particularly obnoxious when women become shrill and indignant over their “body ownership” and the tiniest threats to their legal status as lords of humanity.

I really doubt there are many MRA’s who care if you are getting blown up instead of them. Of course, we object to you bringing the “oh, I had a drunk one night stand so I was raped” crap into the military.

It’s always interesting to read anti-male hate articles that use twitter or youtube comments to support their theories of just how “evil,” people that support human rights for men are, but this takes the cake:

“Are any of these commenters MRAs? Maybe, maybe not, but certainly their misogynistic “logic” is virtually identical to that I’ve seen from misogynist MRAs opposed to women serving in combat. One thing they are clearly not is feminist.”

Maybe, maybe not? LOLOLOLOL

Is Gloria Steinem a serial killer? Maybe, maybe not, but serial killers are terrible and I just mentioned her name in relation to them so you be the judge….

I’m an MRA and I’m certainly not a feminist, though I do support women that want equal rights between the sexes. That’s not what a true feminist is though. Feminists want rights for women and no rights for men. Hate to tell you, but from the beginning of time to right now, MOST men never had any rights. We’ve had responsibilities, but never any rights and whether you like it or not, men are waking up to this.

It’s always interesting to read anti-male hate articles that use twitter or youtube comments to support their theories of just how “evil,” people that support human rights for men are, but this takes the cake:

Those comments were not from Twitter or YouTube, they were comments responding to a LA Times article. In the future, please misread more current posts, it’s more productive then necro-trolling ones that are over year old.

“Anti-male hate articles”? If you were more intellectually honest you would recognize that gender hate emanates from places like AVFM rather than Manboobz. You’re just a MRA true believer that can’t handle any scrutiny directed at your pseudo-movement.

Thing is, when I draw real people for whom I have plenty of photo reference, I prefer to rotoscope, which might not be all that exciting since it would just be a drawn copy of one of your pictures.

If you had any pictures that weren’t coming together the way you liked (lighting wasn’t consistent, couldn’t find a good stock photo of that item of clothing/prop/background, etc), that’s the perfect sort of thing for me to redraw.

I really doubt there are many MRA’s who care if you are getting blown up instead of them..

Oh, are lots of MRAs likely to be blown up then? Have large numbers of MRAs been just been drafted? Or volunteered to come out from behind their keyboards and join the military?
Because unless they have, you slimy shit stain, you should stop trying to claim some sort of vicarious credit for being the same gender as other people who are not MRAs but who genuinely are at risk.

Of course, we object to you bringing the “oh, I had a drunk one night stand so I was raped” crap into the military.

Yes, we know that you are a rape apologist who doesn’t give a shit about rape victims, male or female, unless you can use them to play some petty gotcha against women. But thanks for demonstrating it so clearly.

Faster than a speeding bullet, I haz done a really ordinary sketch to show the layout of the stitches on Mr’s cardie, and found a good pic to base it on. I’ve even found a photo of how moss and rib look together!

The new cardie’s much the same colour as the one in the photo. It’s loose fitting – I made it for him to slob around at home in, though he’s worn it on this side a couple of times (with his fedora – go figure).

Servants, I reckon – not sure if razors or scissors were the go. I’ll have a poke around, I know I’ve seen a Bosse engraving of a feller having his beard trimmed.

Trivia: there’s a tale (from a dubious source: must check if Mr K remembers doing it) that he once took it into his head to trim the beards of all the gentlemen of his household. As in, do it himself. That’s supposedly how the fashion for the very small under-the-lip beards began.

LOL at least having your own hair would eliminate the chance of it falling off! I used to swan around dressed as a Cavalier when I was a teenager, complete with good-quality stuck on moustache (real hair). I have never figured out how spirit gum is supposed to work, ‘cos I had a literal stiff upper lip so the damn thing wouldn’t detach.

Given that hot tongs or wax would be used to get the moustache curled, it would need to be pretty frequent, unless one was a bit of a slob. I don’t think shaving happened every day, but the only reference I’ve read about that was that Charles II (Mr K’s nephew) only shaved two-three times a week, and must have looked pretty mucky in between times, given how dark his hair was. I suspect it was much the same in the earlier generation, if only because one of Mr K’s portraits gives him the best blue jaw ever.

Hee hee hee … So I’m Googling “portrait of Louis XIII” and scrolling right down the page I find a picture of a chap standing outside Scally and Trombone in Fitzroy … wonder where I’ve seen that picture before?

*waves* I spent the vast majority of my day having lunch that turned into a five hour conversation with someone who looks like he stepped out of the Victorian era. Definitely a fan of a vest and pocket watch, though between that and my chunky goth boots, trudging though snow so we could get to a bench to continue the conversation someplace I could smoke was a bit awkward!

Lol, yep! I ever mention that my pharm student looks as stunning in a suit and top hat as in a dress? I can pull off neither look, I’m a little jealous (worst part is we’re basically the same size, but looking good in the other’s clothes only goes one way)

Derailing onto a different question, because I had a slight baking failure this afternoon. How do I stop tinned apples in a cake recipe preventing the cake from getting completely solid – there were sloppy bits around the apples? It was a lemon yoghurt cake modified by adding apples. I used oil instead of butter for the fat, and there were a couple of tablespoons of lemon juice in there as well (as per original recipe).

Baking tips appreciated. I seem to have this issue every time I used tinned apples. I didn’t drain them. I also used fan bake in case that’s important.